Company Law : The submission of MSME-1 is not only a requirement of the Companies Act, but it also has implications on the Income Tax Act and af...
Company Law : Learn the consequences of not filing MSME Form 1 on time as illustrated by a recent penalty case. Understand the legal requirement...
Company Law : Delve into the conundrum surrounding Section 42(7) of the Companies Act 2013 as the ROC Delhi's adjudication order highlights the ...
Company Law : Explore the game-changing Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024, paving the way for Indian...
Company Law : Explore penalty order under Sec. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 on AECOM India for CSR non-compliance. Learn consequences, key takeawa...
Company Law : MCA imposes ₹50,000 penalty on Xinpoming Technology for non-filing of DIR-3 KYC under Rule 12A. Appeal can be filed within 60 da...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court refuses interim relief against NFRA penalties imposed on CAs and CA firm in the Reliance Capital audit lapses cas...
Company Law : The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non...
Company Law : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limit...
Company Law : Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting l...
ROC Chennai ruled that boards must explain every audit qualification or adverse remark. Non-compliance resulted in penalties under the Companies Act.
ROC Chennai held that failure to disclose ICC compliance in the Board’s Report violates Section 134. The company and defaulting directors were penalised accordingly.
The registrar penalised a company for failing to fill a woman director vacancy within the statutory timeline. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with board composition norms.
The registrar penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose a director’s regularisation in the annual return. The key takeaway is that even clerical omissions attract penalties under the residuary provision.
The registrar imposed penalties for a 212-day delay in filing Form MGT-14. Subsequent compliance did not absolve liability under Section 117(2).
The order deals with failure to submit complete allottee particulars in statutory filings. It reinforces that incomplete disclosures under allotment rules attract penalties under the residuary provision.
The issue involved failure to file Form MGT-14 for approval of financial statements. The key takeaway is that such non-compliance attracts penalties under Section 450.
The order examines failure to disclose mandatory allottee details in statutory filings. It confirms that such omissions attract penalty under the residuary provision of the Companies Act.
The issue concerned failure to furnish complete allottee details as required under Rule 14(6). The authority held the lapse attracted penalty under Section 450, reinforcing strict compliance in securities allotment filings.
Incomplete disclosure in the return of allotment was found non-compliant. The company was directed to rectify defaults and pay penalties within the prescribed time.
